White House gossip

by Edna M. Colman

The election was the hardest fought, the bitterest, and the closest in history. The Democrats had capitalized the frauds and scandals of the Republican administration; the Republicans had followed the retaliating policy by waving the “Bloody Shirt,” as the reference to reconstruction policies was called. The consequence was a campaign heated, excited, and doubtful. Mr. Hayes received but one electoral vote over Mr. Tilden, and this the Democrats contested.

Senator Zachariah Chandler (Michigan) was the only prominent Republican leader to remain unshaken in his assertion of a Hayes victory. His assurance of this fact aroused such a furore of resentment and threats of vengeance among Democrats that it looked for a time as though another Civil War might ensue. The Senator telegraphed to President Grant urging the concentration of United States troops in the Southern States’ capitals to insure a fair count. The President referred the matter to General W. T. Sherman, General of the Armies, saying:

“Should there be any grounds of suspicion of fraudulent count on either side, it should be reported and denounced at once. No man worthy of the office of President should be willing to hold it if counted in or placed there by fraud. Either party can afford to be disappointed by the result. The country cannot afford to have the result tainted by the suspicion of illegal or false returns.”

The Democrats charged that the election had not been fairly conducted, asserting openly that many Democratic votes in the South had been thrown out instead of being duly counted by those entrusted with the duty of counting them. The votes from South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida, where carpet-bag government and Negro rule prevailed, were hotly contested. Investigation showed fraud on both sides in these states. Two sets of electors, both insisting that they were legally and properly elected, met and sent their results to Congress. This produced grave concern as there was no provision in the Constitution to meet such a contingency. The uncertainty produced a tense situation. Some conservatives advocated calmness and patience until news from doubtful states could be confirmed. Others saw nothing but crookedness and excitedly claimed fraud. Each party sent some of its political leaders to the state capitals, where the issue was at question to observe and report from the spot.

So grave were the apprehensions over the state of affairs that Congress was called upon to settle the matter. To meet the crisis, they created an electoral commission to consist of five Senators, five Representatives, and five Supreme Court Justices. Upon this body was placed the responsibility for the decision.

The members of the Electoral Commission were as follows: From the Senate, George P. Edwards, Vermont; Oliver P. Morton, Indiana; Frederick Frelinghuysen, New Jersey; Thomas F. Bayard, Delaware; Allen G. Thurman, Ohio; from the House of Representatives, Harry B. Payne, Ohio; Eppa Hunton, Virginia; Josiah C. Abbot, Massachusetts; James A. Garfield, Ohio; George F. Hoar, Massachusetts; from the Supreme Court, Clifford, Miller, Field, Strong, and Bradley. Senator Francis Kernan substituted for Senator Thurman, who was incapacitated by illness.

Ben Perley Poore, noted correspondent, has left a vivid picture of the conditions of the public mind at this time, and also the extreme measures used and the pressure each party threw into the concluding hours of debate and discussion through which a settlement was finally reached. In part, he says:

“The counting of the electoral vote on the 2d of February, 1877, attracted crowds to the House of Representatives. Even the diplomats came out in force, and for once their gallery was full.... At one o’clock the Senate came over in solemn procession, preceded by the veteran Captain Bassett, who had in charge two mahogany boxes, in which were locked the votes upon which the fate of the nation depended....

“President pro tem. Ferry, in a theatrical bass voice, called the Convention to order, and, after stating what it was convened for, opened one of the boxes and handed an envelope to Senator Allison, with a duplicate to Mr. Stone. It was from the State of Alabama, and on being opened, ten votes were recorded for Samuel J. Tilden, of New York. State after state was thus counted until Florida was reached, when the majestic Dudley Field arose and objected to the counting thereof. A brief discussion ensued, and the vote of Florida was turned over to the Electoral Commission. The Senate then returned to its chamber, preceded by the locked boxes, then nearly empty.

“It was asserted by those who should have known that Judge Bradley, who had been substituted for Judge Davis, came near, in the discussion on the Florida votes, turning the result in favour of Tilden. After the argument upon the Florida case before the Commission, Judge Bradley wrote out his opinion and read it to Judge Clifford and Judge Field, who were likewise members of the Commission. It contained, first, an argument, and, secondly, a conclusion. The argument was precisely the same as that which appears in the public document; but Judge Bradley’s conclusion was that the votes of the Tilden electors in Florida were the only votes which ought to be counted as coming from the State. This was the character of the paper when Judge Bradley finished it and when he communicated it to his colleagues. During the whole of that night Judge Bradley’s house in Washington was surrounded by the carriages of Republican visitors, who came to see him apparently about the decision of the Electoral Commission, which was to be announced next day. These visitors included leading Republicans, as well as persons deeply interested in the Texas Pacific Railroad scheme. “When the Commission assembled the next morning, and when the judgment was declared, Judge Bradley gave his voice in favour of counting the votes of the Hayes electors in Florida! The argument he did not deliver at the time; but when it came to be printed subsequently, it was found to be precisely the same as the argument which he had originally drawn up, and on which he had based his first conclusion in favour of the Tilden electors.